From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6595107A for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:33:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (mail-vk0-f50.google.com [209.85.213.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79481EC for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:33:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k1so37442928vkb.2 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 07:33:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=RsVF2IBWqAUf4fjGlipjWr9FUDzl1bbt+hglz6MPIYM=; b=ekmUEipDyjjkyAWmFJtJoU8IBcyX758DhCGA3mCcgWd+iK63gQE/6NbOpKAXQGvO6N /X+92Gb/D0wttvXuVgBHm2umXFJb7nhtczEefULcW7xlJq5kJcFBld7DXbFZw6YW1YpC 8oXm+WAWitXsQR1L+DHBe4AGl0G0oqP0h7hMJvGpzWhH/NxNgvFCgJi2A/kq+6v3C43F LcDXdB6aTzQec+W3QejEhbva0KlLW1bsv6lcPFJTEF814yLIsVv4ZSyD1B86lZ08yz9U PJJOKJtTH1XtjsS3l1XT1EWa8QNzkZVuipU/tFhi+q82uIF0535mowEp4MLRWOIBpM+V Cljw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RsVF2IBWqAUf4fjGlipjWr9FUDzl1bbt+hglz6MPIYM=; b=KuwjhxN33aKVQFf/eC8aYpo7SSZp5o/AO7DKIkscmVWhA6Q+kCYR272mjVMOv8KCB2 OiaQ5OUkXRSVmJHvZO4mLOVhexg3x1h6I45yKN3qD6iUpp9Wdo66UySZlyJTLh5liQ+r xRi+gRlU9MGS7a04UafpZ76xs7w9Nwb8/FG2Vywa/ahQjHFgwvNbR6MnHQHgWBq+TTcu 1c05gRPrdR4lTmTzXzT91linQoftyqp6iZtQc7OkLmLaGLDBQgnY8zw6scUw1hYUhJDO z8xeDMZ5XFtq/mDIdaLgB7tmj84mtY+mFQ0UNNAwoJXlWKpjhOki0u+KyfmNkhPj6GPQ nAXw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTGu1c74ZMqY6LEMTYOkvW4jbRnnpOuZVCPQEU4eB4gNziICpIBYojwwMJrLcYAJRvIrBsruOBXNKckAGCSnDKV2BTSg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.34.213 with SMTP id i204mr29241248vki.2.1451144033553; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 07:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 07:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 07:33:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20151220132842.GA25481@muck> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:33:53 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Eric Lombrozo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113dcb1ea3621b0527cecc6f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev , nbvfour@gmail.com Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:33:55 -0000 --001a113dcb1ea3621b0527cecc6f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Dec 26, 2015 9:24 AM, "Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Unfortunately, this also means longer confirmation times, lower throughput, and lower miner revenue. Note, however, that confirmations would (on average) represent more PoW, so fewer confirmations would be required to achieve the same level of security. > I'm not sure I understand this. If mining revenue per unit of time drops, total pow per unit of time should also drop. Even if the inter-block time is increased, it's not clear to me that the pow per block would necessarily be higher. What am I missing? --001a113dcb1ea3621b0527cecc6f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Dec 26, 2015 9:24 AM, "Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linu= xfoundation.org> wrote:
=C2=A0
> Unfortunately, this also means longer confirmation times, lower throug= hput, and lower miner revenue. Note, however, that confirmations would (on = average) represent more PoW, so fewer confirmations would be required to ac= hieve the same level of security.
> =C2=A0

I'm not sure I understand this. If mining revenue per un= it of time drops, total pow per unit of time should also drop. Even if the = inter-block time is increased, it's not clear to me that the pow per bl= ock would necessarily be higher.
What am I missing?

--001a113dcb1ea3621b0527cecc6f--